1662 Book of Common Prayer Online

1928 Book of Common Prayer Online

Alastair's Adversaria

Anglican Bible and Book Society

An Anglican Bookshelf (List of recommended Anglican books)

Anglican Church in North America

Anglican Expositor

Anglican Mission in the Americas

An Anglican Priest

Anglican Pastor

Anglican Radio

Anglican Rose

Anglican TV

Anglicanly Speaking

A BCP Anglican

The Book of Common Prayer (Blog of Photos)

The Book of Common Prayer (Online Texts)

The Church Calendar

Church Society

Classical Anglicanism:  Essays by Fr. Robert Hart

Cogito, Credo, Petam

Colorado Anglican Society

The Conciliar Anglican

The Conciliar Anglican's YouTube Channel

(The Old) Continuing Anglican Churchman

(The New) Continuing Anglican Churchman

The Continuum

Convictional Anglican

Drew's Views

The Evangelical Ascetic

Free Range Anglican

The Hackney Hub

Jesse Nigro's Thoughts

The Latimer Trust

New Scriptorium (Anglican Articles and Books Online)

The Old High Churchman

Prayer Book Anglican

The Prayer Book Society, USA

Project Canterbury


Reformed Catholicism

Reformed Episcopal Church

The Ridley Institute

River Thames Beach Party

The Secker Society

Society of Archbishops Cranmer and Laud

Stand Firm

The Theologian

The World's Ruined

Three Streams


To All The World

Trinity House Blog

United Episcopal Church of North America

Virtue Online



Bad Vestments

The Low Churchman's Guide to the Solemn High Mass

Lutheran Satire


1517: The Legacy Project

The Book of Concord

The Calvinist International

Christianae Apologetica

Concordia Theology

Curlew River

The Davenant Trust

Ded Orthodox Zeppelin

Gottesdienst Online

The Gospel Coalition

Higher Things

Just and Sinner

Kuyperian Commentary


Post-Reformation Digital Library


Reformation 21

Reformation 500

Theology Like a Child



Ponder Anew: Discussions about Worship for Thinking People


Art of the Rifle

The Art of Manliness

Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture

Craft Beer


Joffre the Giant: Excursions in Christian Virility

Mercurius Pragmaticus Redivivus

The Midland Agrarian

Midwest Conservative Journal

Numavox Records (Music of Kerry Livgen & Co.)

The Pipe Smoker

Project Appleseed (Basic Rifle Marksmanship)


Essays on the Ordination of Women from the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth

Packer: Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters

Streams of the River: Articles Outlining the Arguments Against the Ordination of Women

Powered by Squarespace
Categories and Monthly Archives
This area does not yet contain any content.

       Death to the Beast

                           Click for music.  Player will open on separate page.              

           Celebrating 400 Years of Anglicanism in America at the Old Jamestown Church


Imputation: A "Protestant Given"

I just stumbled upon this article from the Westminster Theological Journal, which responds to N.T. Wright and Robert Gundry on imputation.  The summary section of this article is entitled Imputation: A "Protestant Given", and it is this givenness about which I want to say a few words here.

I have spoken previously here at OJC about Anglican academic types who are devotees of the late Bishop of Durham and who speak as though New Perspective vs. Old Perspective is now a closed case, with the former clearly, in their minds, superseding the latter.  I get the distinct impression, however, that these Anglicans give Tom Wright a pass on this issue largely because he's "our guy", because he's so right on other matters, and because he's such an engaging, top shelf scholar. But we need to be listening closely to critics of the NPP, because if we don't have justification right, that is a serious thing indeed, especially if Luther was right in his assessment that it is the article on which the church stands or falls.

If Luther was right, then it follows that justification, understood as the imputed righteousness of Christ (its formal cause) through a grace-given faith (its instrumental cause), is a "Protestant given", which is to say just as "settled" an article of faith for Protestants as orthodox triadology and christology are for Protestants and Catholics alike.  All the great Protestant confessions teach imputation, and I would argue along with J.I. Packer that the Anglican confession, the 39 Articles, carries the same authority for the Anglican Christian as the creeds.  It is to those confessions we look for our belief on the matter, and not to the latest academic fad.

Yes, I'm saying the NPP has taken on the characteristics of a fad.  And like all fads, it quickly and easily morphs into the next fad.  This morning I saw a statement from an Anglican academic who, citing this article,  summarizes it by saying,

The old perspective Paul vs. the new perspective Paul is now over. The new debate will be between the new perspective Paul vs. the apocalyptic Paul. . . .

The conversation is shifting to this debate. From now on academics will be posing new perspective understandings (Sanders to Wright) against apocalyptic readings (Käsemann and Martyn and Campbell).

Except that it won't be "from now on", but only until the next generation of theological scholars displaces this new controversy with its own set of thought experiments and deconstructive theories, along with the same kind of insinuations we hear from NPP devotees that those folks in the church who aren't keeping up with them are fearful obscurantists bent only on preserving the past.  Many of these scholars purport to be "conservative", but as discussed here, there is a real question as to whether conservative (or "orthodox") faith can exist in the academy, especially the Protestant academy. 

And why stop at Paul's soteriology?  What's to stop N.T. Wright or any other "conservative" Protestant academic from deconstructing orthodox triadology and christology?  After all, the Fathers' theological method was arguably tainted by Neoplatonistic and other Hellenistic philosophies, which were not shared by Peter, John, James and Paul.  Semper Reformanda!

I am currently reading C. F. Allison's The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter, in which the author argues that the later Caroline Divines, who were much preoccupied with what they perceived to be the antinomian tendencies of the Reformational teaching on justification -- where the imputed righteousness of Christ was believed to be justification's formal cause -- departed from the earlier, arguably orthodox, Anglican view defended by Hooker, et al.  This, argues Allison, led to the rise of a more moralistic soteriology, which later morphed into latitudianism and finally modern Anglican theological radicalism, and influencing "less directly", writes the author, "the Wesleyans and the Tractarians."  All of these mutations occurred largely in the setting of the Anglican academy, bringing much of the church with it in its tow.

The article on which the church stands or falls. . . .

This is why I argue that orthodox Anglicans ought to start viewing the academy and its denizens with more of a gimlet eye, and ask themselves the question why, if imputation can be so summarily dispensed with because some notable "conservative" Anglican scholar says so, the same kind of criticism can't be turned on the Nicene Creed.   Or to put it another way, do we orthodox Anglicans have "givens" or not?

J.I. Packer - Sola Fide: The Reformed Doctrine of Justification

On the NPP and the claims of Roman and Anglo-Catholics, see:

N.T. Wright Dismantling Imputed Righteousness

Does N.T. Wright’s theology lead to Catholicism?


Fr. Munn Replies:

If it only weren’t for (Anglo-Catholicism’s) rejection of the claim, often attributed to Martin Luther, that justification by grace alone through faith alone “is the article by which the church stands and falls.”  Because that article, to us Protestants, constitutes the essence of the Christian Gospel.  Again, (Aidan)  Nichols:

Contrast a modern Anglo-Catholic who asserts that:

the centre if Paul’s theology is not justification by faith, but rather participation in the body of Christ, and the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile,

and taking justification by faith itself as:

meaning one can only live a truly good life through incorporation in the social body dedicated to Christ’s memory – out of the resources which this provides. . .

writes off as ‘residual Lutheranism’ any anxiety that here ‘social elements’ are displacing ‘theological ones’ (Citing J. Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Oxford 1990), p. 120)


How the Nineteenth Century Anglo-Catholic Bishop of Tasmania Rid His Diocese of Evangelicals

Article by Robin JordanLink to the pdf article Mr. Jordan references

Mr. Jordan observes:

To become the dominant church party in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada in the twentieth century liberals would borrow extensively from the play book of the nineteenth century Anglo-Catholic movement.

Those who dismiss the likelihood of the Anglo-Catholic - philo-Orthodox element in the Anglican Church in North America further carrying out their policy of not making room in that denomination for Anglicans who subscribe to the Anglican confessional formularies and the Biblical and Reformed teaching on which they are based and are committed to a Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical vision of the Anglican Church in particular need to read Gough's essay


First Sunday of Advent

 A blessed season to all.


Addison Hart on Anglicanism

Addison Hart is a former Roman priest and brother of Anglican priest Fr. Robert Hart and Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart.  He posted the following on his Facebook page the other day in response to this article.

I post this simply as a reminder of what the Episcopal Church could be (or might have been), and what the various Anglican churches should aspire to be. This is the sort of church I would find appealing. Conversely, any church with a secular agenda (Left or Right), too trendy (with de-sexing and re-sexing lingo and worse), that is morally spineless and spiritually tepid, that has been politicised, and that has done its utmost to undermine its own tradition (not to mention basic Christian belief) is a church I would flee and never look back.

So, I applaud this optimistic look at a more authentic Anglicanism. May that revive, please God.



The Effeminization of the Priesthood

Men will never be drawn to the priesthood in large numbers if they must be adjuncts to women in their most visible role. To the modern man, holiness and manliness seem at odds – he may be hellishly torn between these contradictory drives - because of the loss of male authority and hierarchy. The effusive, emotion-drenched atmosphere of contemporary Christianity is like a gauntlet thrown down before him, a challenge to his elemental, irrefutable identity as a man.

Article here.


Essays on the Ordination of Women from the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth


Combatting Orthodox Caricatures of Western Theology

An intellectually honest post by an Orthodox priest and scholar.   Fr. Herbel echoes the assessment of Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart:

The most damaging consequence . . .  of Orthodoxy’s twentieth-century pilgrimage ad fontes—and this is no small irony, given the ecumenical possibilities that opened up all along the way—has been an increase in the intensity of Eastern theology’s anti-Western polemic. Or, rather, an increase in the confidence with which such polemic is uttered. Nor is this only a problem for ecumenism: the anti-Western passion (or, frankly, paranoia) of Lossky and his followers has on occasion led to rather severe distortions of Eastern theology. More to the point here, though, it has made intelligent interpretations of Western Christian theology (which are so very necessary) apparently almost impossible for Orthodox thinkers. Neo-patristic Orthodox scholarship has usually gone hand in hand with some of the most excruciatingly inaccurate treatments of Western theologians that one could imagine—which, quite apart form the harm they do to the collective acuity of Orthodox Christians, can become a source of considerable embarrassment when they fall into the hands of Western scholars who actually know something of the figures that Orthodox scholars choose to caluminiate. When one repairs to modern Orthodox texts, one is almost certain to encounter some wild mischaracterization of one or another Western author; and four figures enjoy a special eminence in Orthodox polemics: Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and John of the Cross.

I think Anglicans can do business, ecumenically, with folks like Dr. Hart and Fr. Herbel.  Orthodox folks who trash our Western theological heritage, or call our English Reformers "heretics", or seek unconditional surrender to the Orthodox Church, not so much.


On the Affirmation of St. Louis and Anglican Identity: Two Recent Articles from the UEC's Archbishop Peter Robinson


New Crusade: Armed Christian Opposition to ISIL Seems to be Building, Slowly but Surely


We Need an Evangelical Wake-Up Call


It Is Such A Joy to Be with These Folks

The Old Jamestown Church deals in large part with the controveries surrounding the meaning of the Gospel and Anglican identity.  But at the end of the day, everything for which I contend here on this blog is directed -- I pray God's forgiveness whenever I deviate from it because of my own vainglory -- to the advance of God's kingdom.  If theology doesn't in some tangible way address both the glorification of God and the care of His people, then it is fit only for eternal oblivion. 

Honestly, I'm not trying to toot my own horn here.  If there was ever a man who is unworthy of holy orders, it is me.  You have no idea, but I'm not going to fill in the details for you.  It's just that grace overcame, was greater than all my sin, and so I'm humbled to be able to serve God in His Church in the last years of my life.


The Good News of Predestination: An Orthodox Reader Comments on the Grace of Election

Blogger and fellow Coloradan "Columba Silouan", who is a reader of this blog and apparently a tonsured Reader in the Orthodox Church, has posted a couple of comments to my recent blog entry, Archbishop Beach and Metropolitan Hilarion Encourage Anglican/Orthodox Ecumenical Dialogue.  Rather than engage his comments in the combox section there, I've elected (no pun intended) to devote a blog entry here since it is a vitally important topic and since my response will be a lengthy one.  Here are Reader Columba Silouan's comments in full:

In response to Roger, first of all, I'm sorry you had a bad experience with some Orthodox Christians, if those are the "will worshippers" you mean. Nevertheless, I wish to add some fuel to this discussion. Please peruse Fr. Alvin Kimmel's blog Eclectic Orthodoxy where he discusses a different way to examine "Predestination and Election." (

Predestination and Election ARE concepts found in the Bible, but there is a different way to look at these concepts. I think Fr. Al is on to something here. I would caution against uttering anathemas too easily. You just might have to take them back someday. God is the judge of these men and their hearts. What these men probably hate is the concept of "double predestination." I'm not fond of that one, either.

Christians disagree on this subject and doing so doesn't put them outside of salvation in Christ, as you seem to be indicating here. You can hate a certain view about God without hating God, Himself.

Here's the precise link to the article I mentioned:  And the one right before this one is good too.

Blessings in Christ
Reader Columba Silouan

I'm incorporating Fr. Kimel's article here by reference, and would therefore direct my readers to give a careful read to his article before reading my response. 

I will let Rev'd du Barry explain what he means, precisely, by the "worship" of human volition. Let me preface my response to Fr. Kimel by saying a little about the Augustinian criticism of the position that assigns too much ability to the human will.  I will do so by quoting a passage from the first edition of Alister McGrath's monumental study of the doctrine of justification, Iustitia Dei:  

Part of the fascination of the patristic era to the scholar lies in the efforts of its theologians to express an essentially Hebraic gospel in a Hellenistic milieu: the delights of patristic scholarship must not, however, be permitted to divert our attention from the suspicion voiced by the Liberal school in the last century - that Christ's teaching was seriously compromised by the Hellenism of its earlier adherents. The history of the development of the Christian doctrine of justification lends support to such a suspicion. In particular, it can be shown that two major distortions were introduced into the corpus of traditional belief within the eastern church at a very early stage, and were subsequently transferred to the emerging western theological tradition. These are:

1. The introduction of the non-biblical, secular Stoic concept of autoexousia or liberum arbitrium in the articulation of the human response to the divine initiative in justification.

2. The implicit equation of tsedaqa, dikaiosune and iustitia, linked with the particular association of the Latin meritum noted earlier (p.15), inevitably suggested a correlation between human moral effort and justification within the western church.

The subsequent development of the western theological tradition, particularly since the time of Augustine, has shown a reaction against both these earlier distortions, and may be regarded as an attempt to recover a more biblically orientated approach to the question of justification. . . .

The emerging patristic understanding of such matters as predestination, grace and free will is somewhat confused, and would remain so until controversy forced full discussion of the issue upon the church. Indeed, by the end of the fourth century, the Greek fathers had formulated a teaching on human free will based upon philosophical rather than biblical foundations. Standing in the great Platonic tradition, heavily influenced by Philo, and reacting against the fatalisms of their day, they taught that man was utterly free in his choice of good or evil. . . . (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, First Edition, Vol. I, pp.18-19. Emphases mine)

To put the matter more succinctly, the view of human volition, which is reflected in much patristic thought and accordingly in the thought of many today who put an emphasis on patristic authority, is a pagan one. Whether or not such an exaltation of the human capacity for meaningful choice constitutes a form of "worship", an uncritical embrace of pagan philosophy whilst doing theology has led to all manner of error.   Pelagianism and Semipelagianism were two such errors.  The former received ecumenical condemnation and the latter condemnation in the West.  A subsequent error of similar nature, Arminianism, was condemned at the Synod of Dort, and the question for the Anglican is whether or not that theology stands condemned in the light of Articles IX, X and XVII. 

Unfortunately, resurgences of Pelagianism and Semipelagianism have occurred throughout Catholic history despite being condemned heresies, and as a number of Anglican theologians have observed, the English people nevertheless seem to have a hankering for Pelagianism.  I have met two Anglicans on a certain Facebook page who openly describe themselves as Pelagians, one of whom is an aspirant to holy orders in ACNA (and an open theist to boot).  When not Pelagians or Semipelagians, many Anglicans, arguably betraying this English predilection, are nonetheless Arminians.  However, as implied above the question is whether or not Arminianism too, for Anglicans, should be considered a "declared heresy."  Is their view of the human will pagan, as was the case with so many of the Fathers?  Is to exalt the capacities of the human will ipso facto to deny the biblical teaching concerning the sovereignty of God, and if so, is that a form of humanism that can be rightly described as "worship"? 

Turning now from that question to Fr. Kimel's article:

Fr. Kimel entitles his article, Recovering the Good News of Predestination.  I am happy to see Fr. Kimel link the concepts of divine predestination and the Gospel, because that's what the apostolic authors of the New Testament do, and especially St. Paul.  Taking their cue largely from Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which is the most detailed explication of the nature of the Gospel in the New Testament, Cranmer and the other drafters of the Article XII likewise link the two.  Note especially the echoes of the end of Romans 8, which is a transitional section between Paul's discourse on justification by faith alone and his controversial discourse on unconditional election in chapters 9-11, to which the Article also alludes:

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

Ergo: the doctrine of predestination means comfort and assurance to the believer in Christ.  That salvation is assured is the principal reason why the Gospel, which means "good news", is in fact a message of good news.  For the elect, salvation is a done deal and they shall accordingly never fall from grace - quite in opposition to the message delivered by this Orthodox blogger and speaker.  And unfortunately Fr. Kimel follows her by taking away with the left hand what he gave in his right hand when he initially linked the "good news" of the Gospel and predestination.

As the reader has seen, the argument he employs to essentially negate the good news of predestination consists of an appeal to two theologians who have contributed significant theological work on the question of predestination, Karl Barth, the late neo-orthodox Reformed theologian, and Joseph Farrell, an Orthodox theologian.  As an aside, Dr. Farrell is an old college buddy of mine.  Though it's been years since he and I have corresponded, his argumentations for Orthodoxy and against Augustinianism were part of the mix of influences that resulted in my conversion to Orthodoxy back in the early 90s.  Of course, I now repudiate most of the arguments that led to my conversion, and that would include Dr. Farrell's arguments.

In one of his letters to me, Dr. Farrell wrote that his view of election was more or less the view of Karl Barth, so it comes as no surprise to me that Fr. Kimel links the two arguments in his article.  Barth's view of election is widely commended for its christocentric rather than decretal focus.  We can see that christocentric focus in the quotations that Fr. Kimel provided.  After Barth downplays the decretal theology in the preceding paragraph of the quotation Fr. Kimel provided from Church Dogmatics, he writes:

The election of grace is the sum of the Gospel—we must put it as pointedly as that. But more, the election of grace is the whole of the Gospel, the Gospel in nuce. It is the very essence of all good news. It is as such that it must be understood and evaluated in the Christian Church. God is God in His being as the One who loves in freedom. This is revealed as a benefit conferred upon us in the fact which corresponds to the truth of God’s being, the fact that God elects in His grace, that He moves towards man, in his dealing within this covenant with the one man Jesus, and the people represented by Him. All the joy and the benefit of His whole work as Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer, all the blessings which are divine and therefore real blessings, all the promise of the Gospel which has been declared: all these are grounded and determined in the fact that God is the God of the eternal election of His grace. In the light of this election the whole of the Gospel is light. Yes is said here, and all the promises of God are Yea and Amen (2 Cor 1:20). (Church Dogmatics, II/2: 12-14)

Fr. Kimel's summary:

Predestination intends Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God and second person of the Holy Trinity, the Messiah of Israel and the mediator and embodiment of the world’s salvation. Because predestination intends Jesus, it intends Israel, elected by God to receive in her flesh the Savior of the world. Because predestination intends Jesus, it intends the Blessed Virgin Mary, Theotokos, chosen by God to conceive, birth, nurture and protect the Messiah of her people. Because predestination intends Jesus, it intends the Church, the body of Christ, the new Israel and elect company of the twice-born. And because predestination simultaneously intends Jesus, Israel, Mary, and the Church, it also intends the individual believer in Christ, who has been baptized into the death and resurrection of the Lord, incorporated into the eschatological community, and made an heir of the kingdom. The gospel of election proclaims to the baptized that through their sacramental incorporation into the incarnate Son of God, they participate in the divine Sonship and are destined to be with Christ in his kingdom. Jesus is the elect One of God.  United to him we share in his divine election. To be in the Church is to be in Christ; to be in Christ is to be in God; and to be in God is to enjoy eternal salvation in the life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

Jesus is the Christ because of his election. If the believer bears—in the profound, biblical sense—the name of Christ by bearing the name of Christian, he does so because he shares in the election of Christ. The idea that we share or participate in Christ is characteristic of the Christian religion. We share in Christ’s death, his resurrection, his Spirit, his ascension, his return, his judgment of the world, his threefold task as prophet, priest, and king, his suffering, his kingdom, power, and glory. And we share in his election. That we do so is only another expression for the fact that election in biblical thought is never a purely individual matter. The election of the believer, as that of Israel and the church, is an involvement in the divine election of Jesus….The idea of participation in Christ’s election spells the end of any purely individualistic doctrine of election and the illegitimacy of theologically tailoring the gospel to fit such a doctrine. It liberates us from the insoluble problem that a merely individual election raises for the proclamation of the gospel. It makes election the language of grace, thereby removing its vulnerability to rational manipulation in terms of logical inferences and implications. (James Daane, The Freedom of God, pp. 198-199)

And thus Fr. Kimel concludes (bolded emphasis mine),

At the moment one makes the Augustinian turn and seeks to explain human rejection of the gospel in terms of God’s eternal decrees, the preaching of election becomes impossible. The logic appears inescapable. If salvation is by grace alone, and if some reject Christ to their damnation, does this not mean that God reprobates the damned? But the gospel itself disallows the question. The election of Christ Jesus is the reason why some are saved; but it is not the reason why some are not! As James Daane comments: “Nothing in the Bible suggests that God created the world to save some men and damn others. Nothing in the Bible suggests that God elected Israel in order to damn all Gentile nations. Nothing in the Bible suggests that God sent Christ into the world both to save and damn. On this matter the Apostle is unequivocal: ‘God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him’” (p. 201).

See, the quintessential Western error, per the Orthodox, is to "make the Augustinian turn", and therefore follow the "declared heresy" of Calvinism regarding God's eternal decrees.  There's just one problem: the Bible.  For, as McGrath implies in the quotation above and as many have countered, St. Augustine was simply pointing to, against free willism, the biblical teaching regarding the fallenness of the human will vis-à-vis the sovereignty of God.  And with respect to the decrees, the Bible speaks of things God did "before the foundations of the world" and similar phraseology, so to completely jettison decretal theology for a solely Arminianesque christocentric one is to go theologically awry.  The apostolic writers who treated predestination and election clearly taught that God, before the foundation of the world, elected a certain number of individuals -- not a class or corporate body of believers -- for justification, sanctification and ultimate glorification.   Fr. Kimel's, Dr. Farrell's and Reader Columba Silouan's argument is not with St. Augustine, but with Peter, John and Paul -- and with our Lord.   

Fr. Kimel therefore avers, in good, Catholic, Orthodox and arguably Wrightian fashion, that

because predestination simultaneously intends Jesus, Israel, Mary, and the Church, it also intends the individual believer in Christ, who has been baptized into the death and resurrection of the Lord, incorporated into the eschatological community, and made an heir of the kingdom. The gospel of election proclaims to the baptized that through their sacramental incorporation into the incarnate Son of God, they participate in the divine Sonship and are destined to be with Christ in his kingdom. Jesus is the elect One of God.  United to him we share in his divine election.

In these words we see the inordinately incarnational/ecclesial nature of the atonement typically set forth by Roman Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, Orthodox, and nowadays even certain Protestants.  In the remainder of his article Fr. Kimel takes up the argument that Dr. Farrell advanced in his book  Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor.  For Farrell and so many other Orthodox theologians, St. Maximus the Confessor is the East's answer to the West's St. Augustine.  You see, it's all about St. Augustine's mistake in confusing person and nature (bolded emphases mine):

. . . Farrell asks, “Why does the West seem constantly plagued by recurring controversies over predestination and free will?” (p. 199). It’s not that the East was not also plagued by such controversies, as the centuries-long Eastern debates about the apokatastasis witness; but these debates appear to have disappeared after the resolution of the monothelite crisis. Farrell proposes multiple reasons for the West’s continuing struggle with predestination, many of which are highly speculative; but his most plausible candidate is the failure to properly distinguish between person and nature. Farrell cites St Augustine’s exegesis of John 6:39 (“This is the will of the Father who hath sent me, that of all that he hath given me I shall lose nothing”) as an example. Who are the “all”? According to Augustine, the “all” are the specific individuals who have been divinely elected to salvation: this “number is so certain that one can neither be added to them nor taken away from them.” For Augustine, predestination pertains to persons. Maximus, on the other hand, interprets “all” as referring to the human nature assumed by Christ in the Incarnation. Farrell states the contrast:

Rather than interpreting the “all” in a “Maximian” manner as referring to the single human nature of Christ, that is, rather than interpreting it christologically, in reference to Christ, St. Augustine interprets it predestinationally, in reference to his general doctrine of predestination. Christological considerations have been subordinated to an overarching structure of predestination. (p. 207)

Because human nature has been resurrected in Christ, all human beings will share in the resurrection, either to their salvation or to their damnation, depending on their free personal decisions. Predestination thus refers to the future state of embodied life, guaranteed to every individual by the paschal victory; it does not refer to the choice each individual must make in relationship to his Creator. Or to put the matter in different words: grace as resurrection is irresistible; grace as the enhypostasization of eternal beatitude is resistible. Farrell explains:

Christ produces the permanence of everlasting being for all of human nature, but only “as each human hypostasis” wills. To put this point in more “Calvinistic” terms makes its implications quite clear: the resurrection is the one, universal, irreformable and ineluctable fact of all human destinies, admitting of no exceptions. However, the type or state of that resurrection, that is to say, Ever-Ill or Ever-Well Being depends upon the person. One might go so far as to say that the irresistible will of God to save all men is viewed as being fulfilled by Christ in His resurrection of all human nature to everlasting being. The “all” of St. John 6:39 would thus be taken as referring to Christ’s humanity, that is, to His human nature, and not to a predestined number of human persons. It is this humanity in its fullness and perfection in Christ which is raised, and nothing is lost to it if some person wills not to be saved. Nothing has been denied to God’s sovereignty because nothing is lacking to Christ’s humanity, and yet nothing has been denied to personal human liberty either. (p. 217)

The Sixth Ecumenical Council tells us that the human nature assumed by the eternal Son included the faculty of volition—Christ has both a divine will and a human will. But if the human will has been redeemed and healed, and if Christ, in both his divine and human natures, wills the salvation of all humanity, and if all human beings are united to Christ in their ontological depths, then apokatastasis would seem to be an inevitability. Maximus solves this problem by positing two human wills: “the will as a property of nature” and the will as “property as the person,” i.e., “the equally real mode of using and employing the will” (p. 218). The natural will, redeemed in Christ, always chooses the good; evil choices, however, belong to the personal or hypostatic will. This distinction between the natural will and the personal exercise of the will thus allows Maximus to assert both that all humanity is saved by Christ through his regeneration of human nature and that each individual is free to align or disalign his will with the will of God. Through and in the incarnate Son the created human hypostasis enjoys the liberty to decide for heaven or hell.

Interestingly, however, Fr. Kimel says in the very next paragraph,  "At this point in my studies, I am unwilling to sign off on Farrell’s presentation of St. Maximus or to declare that Maximus has solved the predestination mystery", and this after previously stating, "Farrell proposes multiple reasons for the West’s continuing struggle with predestination, many of which are highly speculative. . . ." 

Indeed.  The main reason I came to reject everything Dr. Farrell wrote to me in personal mailings, which naturally reflected what he wrote in his books, is that I came to see his argument as hopelessly speculative and biblically groundless.  Consider his approval of Maximus' exegesis of John 6:39:

Farrell cites St Augustine’s exegesis of John 6:39 (“This is the will of the Father who hath sent me, that of all that he hath given me I shall lose nothing”) as an example. Who are the “all”? According to Augustine, the “all” are the specific individuals who have been divinely elected to salvation: this “number is so certain that one can neither be added to them nor taken away from them.” For Augustine, predestination pertains to persons. Maximus, on the other hand, interprets “all” as referring to the human nature assumed by Christ in the Incarnation.

Let's take a look at that verse in context:

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

That Maximus could find human nature and not individuals in verse 39 is a testament to his wholly philosophical and theological approach to the text, one that is devoid of every necessary exegetical control.  The text CLEARLY refers to individuals.  There is nothing in this passage that suggests human nature is being resurrected; everything in it points to persons being resurrected.  And this just highlights the fundamental problem with Eastern Orthodoxy (and to a lesser but significant extent Anglo-Catholicism), which is that its theology is structured more around the mystical and philosophical nature of Greek theology rather than the exegetical nature of Augustine's later theology.  Any number of Augustine scholars will tell you that while he started out as a strong Neoplatonist, and that Neoplatonism did continue to exercise a deleterious effect in some of his theology, in later years he turned from a philosophical theologian to a much more exegetical one, and in his struggle against Pelagianism he resorted to all of the apostolic material -- including verses such as John 6:39 -- which buttress the case for the view of unconditional election reflected in Article XVII and in the theology of the (Augustinian) Reformers generally. 

So, at the end of the day, any theology that rejects the Pauline-Augustinian view of predestination and election, with its emphasis on the pivotal nature of a penal-substitutionary atonement, for a view that stresses the inordinately christocentric and Arminianesque Barthian view, or an inordinantly "incarnational" view that equates the "elect" with the number of those who are baptized and who rely solely on dispensed sacraments of the church for salvation, is playing fast and loose with the Bible, which is to say with the teaching of our Lord and his apostles.  To the people who so believe, there is only one message:  Repent and believe the predestinarian Good News of Jesus Christ.  There's no good news to be found in this, for in this all you have is what a worship of human will gives you, which is exactly nothing:

"Staying faithful until my very last breath upon this earth."  Or not, as the case may be.


Praying Like an Anglican

Excellent video from St. Peter's Anglican, Evans, GA. 

I may be Reformed, but I'm also high church, and this is the kind of music we should offer to God in our liturgy.


New to the Blogroll


Irresistable Grace: On the Conversion and Life of St. Paul (Throw Me Down)

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. . . .


For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. . . .

 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

Throw Me Down

Words of fire raining down on me
My blood is rising in a fury
The battle's raging with the Pride of Man,
And the winner takes all

I can't resist the irresistible force
But like a fool I keep on trying
While I breathe I am a natural man
But the Spirit lives on

Move me beyond, mold me and shape me
Unbreakable bond, keep me in step with the race

Throw me, Throw me, Throw me down
Throw me, Throw me, Throw me down

I see the mirror and my enemy
Staring back at me in wonder
Still I want what I can never be
Cause' the winner takes all

Heart of deceit, wicked and cunning
Will come to defeat, only if I lose myself

Throw me, Throw me, Throw me down
Throw me, Throw me, Throw me down


Archbishop Beach and Metropolitan Hilarion Encourage Anglican/Orthodox Ecumenical Dialogue (Updated 11-17 and 11-24)

November 24 Update:

Nov. 17 Update:


Story at the ACNA's web site.

Thus far the "Anglican/Orthodox Ecumenical Dialogue:"

Orthodoxy:  "'The Orthodox Church is not only the past of Anglicanism; it is the future'. . . . You must stop saying the filioque in the Creed, jettison the 'heresies' of the Reformation (and specifically the 'condemned heresy' of Calvinism), stop ordaining women, and embrace the Orthodox faith."

Anglicanism: (Wild applause.) "We'll get back to you."

Jesting aside, I suppose dialogue with the Orthodox could bear some positive fruit in terms of cooperation in the culture wars.  However, this new initiative appears to harken back to the Orthodox/Anglican dialogue of the early 20th century, before the Church of England went off the rails.  The CofE had a bit of an Anglo-Catholic stamp on it back in those days, and it was this which the Orthodox Church saw as creating a potential for fruitful dialogue.  When it comes to Anglicanism's Evangelical party, however, there's not much for Orthodoxy to do except to tell it to "stop saying the filioque, jettison the 'heresies' of the Reformation (and specifically the 'condemned heresy' of Calvinism), stop ordaining women, and embrace the Orthodox faith."  Orthodoxy, like the Anglo-Catholic party, has no love for the Pauline-Augustinian doctrines of grace, the English Reformation that was in no small part based on them, or the Thirty-Nine Articles that teaches them.

The article at the ACNA page quotes Archbishop Foley Beach:

Metropolitan Hilarion has spent no small amount of time with Anglicans around the world, and over the years he has been a prophetic voice calling the Anglican Church to remain true to the Christian faith in the face of an increasing propensity for cultural accommodation. The conversation tonight was a pleasure, and I look forward to finding the ways in which we might partner for the cause of the Gospel.

It is important to be prophetic, and we're glad to see Met. Hilarion prophetically calling Anglican radicals in the CofE to repent of their apostasy.  But do Realignment Anglicans in general and the ACNA in particular have anything prophetic to say to the Orthodox Church in reply to the injunction directed to orthodox Anglicans to stop saying the filioque, jettison the "heresies" of the Reformation (and specifically the "condemned heresy" of Calvinism), stop ordaining women, and embrace the Orthodox faith?  You know, like enjoining the Orthodox to revisit their view of the Gospel, before we go off and "partner" with them in its cause?  Dialogue is supposed to be a two-way street after all, but more importantly, if we ain't got the Gospel right we ain't got nothin' right.

I'm afraid that in the final analysis this "re-birth of Anglican/Orthodox relations" is much ado about nothing.  The Orthodox Church to this day maintains that of the Two One True Churches it is the Onest and Truest, and that conversion to Orthodoxy is the only acceptable course of action for those outside of its canonical boundaries who desire to "remain true to the Christian faith."  That's not just the jaundiced assessment of one who spent over a decade in the Orthodox Church.  It is simply an objective fact.

Previous responses to Anglican/Orthodox dialogue here and here.


E.A. Knox on the Oxford Movement and Anglo-Catholicism

Knox was the Bishop of Manchester from 1903 to 1921.  His book on the Oxford Movement and the Anglo-Catholicism it spawned is a must read.  Reflecting on the legacy of that movement in the Church of England of his day and the proper Evangelical reaction to it, he writes the following.  Bolded emphases are mine: 

Still the question may now be asked whether the experience of a century of so-called Catholic teaching, widely professed and tenaciously held without submission to Rome, does not guarantee the strength and reality of a Church Anglican, and Catholic, but not Roman? There has been, it is admitted, a constant stream of secession to Rome, mostly from Anglo-Catholic churches, and a continual approximation of Anglican doctrine and practice to Roman. This will be freely admitted by Anglo-Catholics. Still they contend that Canterbury holds out firmly against Rome, and honestly repudiates any suggestion of submission to the Papacy. This being the case, and the experience of a century having in this sense confirmed the Oxford view of a Via Media, it is suggested that Protestant opposition to the great body of doctrine and worship common to England, Rome and the Churches of the East is narrow-minded and obscurantist. Here, it is alleged, is a rich heritage come down to us through the ages, on which saintly lives have been formed, a treasury of devotion consecrated by art, an international unity of prayer and sacrifice, no growth of yesterday, no invention of a Luther, a Calvin or a Zwingli, but a living manifestation of the unity of the Body of Christ: one river, flowing in three great channels, One Temple, with, so to speak, chancel, nave and aisles. In view of this Holy Catholic Church, is it not, so we are asked, is it not the duty of the Protestant to put aside his Confessions of West-minster, of Augsburg, of Helvetia, even his Thirty-nine Articles, and at all events, to approximate his faith and  worship, so far as conscience allows, to this lofty and world-wide standard, to give in his spiritual life and worship a new place to the Lord's prayer for Unity? Such an appeal as this is not lightly to be set aside. The answer to it must come from a generous spirit and an unprejudiced mind.

The answer of the Protestant in one simple sentence is this: "Loyalty to Christ forbids." We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the Catholic system, as it is called, is not to be found in the teaching of Christ and His Apostles, but is the product of a later age, and a product that has had disastrous consequences. We cannot take it for granted that every development of Catholic doctrine and organization was necessarily on right lines. From a very early date in the life of the Church anti-Christian influences affected it. Conflict with the Empire, conflict with surrounding religions acted upon the primitive Church, and forced upon it a stereotyped organization. But it is the very nature of organization to lead to over-emphasis, to false emphasis, and thus to conceal the very truth which it was intended to protect. The conflicts of the Church with the world favoured organization, and organization soon materially affected the development of the Episcopate and of the Sacraments in the Early Church. It was this very development that so grievously misled the Tractarians; they used teachings of the second and third centuries to interpret the first instead of discriminating what was primitive from what was bred of conflict and antagonism. The prominence given to the Episcopate in conflict with the State and with mystery-religions led to the idea that the Spirit of Christ was a special endowment of the Episcopate. So it came to pass that "in a concrete way the Episcopate was substituted for the earlier faith in the Exalted Christ and the Holy Spirit: the Episcopate becomes the successor of Christ and of the Apostles, the bearer of the Spirit, the extension or eternalizing of the Incarnation, a visible and tangible proof of the Divine truth and power.  .. It (the Episcopate) also reacts upon the conception of Christ by transforming the idea of the incarnation of a Spirit working freely in the hearts of men into that of Christ as a great High Priest and celebrant, the source of all the sacerdotal energies of grace." "The Episcopal Church of sacrament and tradition has therefore become the second fundamental dogma." (n)

As a necessary consequence, in spite of some subtle distinctions too refined for practical use, it came to pass that the Church thus organized through the Episcopate took over secular power, was involved in all the arts of secular organization, and came forth through its spiritual character as entitled to universal pre-eminence. Time has modified the secular claims of the Church, though very partially as far as Rome is concerned. But whether at Rome or elsewhere "the Catholic ideal" of the Church comes between Christ and the Christian, conveys to the Christian the grace of the Sacraments only through the Church, gives to acceptance of doctrine the title of faith, even of saving faith, and, provided that the Christian is a loyal son of the Church, makes itself responsible for his salvation.

It is loyalty to Christ that makes this system, however successful it may claim to be in producing its own type of sanctity, impossible for the Protestant, who has known the power of the Spirit in his soul, and tested the reality of it in daily life. The manifestation of the system at an early period does not prove it to be a correct reflection of the teaching of Christ. Dr. Pusey, speaking of his own teaching to the author of this book, urged that it was to be found in Fathers not more remote from the Apostles than he (Dr. Pusey) was from his own grandfather. A hundred years are quite long enough to make great religious revolutions. The Church of England to-day is very different from the Church of the author's grandfather. It is not time only that has to be taken into account in the history of religion. The world of environing thought, the pressure of social conditions, and the process of internal development, are all factors which mould the life of the Church as much as that of any other institution. We have seen in the last century the Church of England affected by political and industrial revolutions, by artistic developments, by an extraordinary passion for pomp, pageantry, and theatrical display. It may be asserted that towards some of these factors the Oxford Movement caused the Church to be favourably inclined, made reception of them an easy matter. Such assertions can hardly be denied; and if every movement in a Church is a progressive movement, the nineteenth century may be called an age of Church progress. If the Church ought to be at home with the world, then the Church of to-day, though more given to awe and mystery, is in its own way quite as much at home with the world as the Church of 1833.

But this criticism of Tractarianism needs amplification. In justice to Tractarians it should be said that from their point of view this fear of the intervention of the Church between Christ and the soul is not justified, if pains are taken to appreciate their sacramental principles. Tractarians would say that "A false impression of their system is gained from superficial seizing upon such phrases as the opus operatum of Baptism, or as the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated elements. There is, it is true, as they would say, such an error as that of reliance upon purely external acts, but Tractarianism strove honestly against that error. For while it insisted that the New Birth is given in Baptism independently of the faith of the recipient—it also taught that the Life so imparted was Divine, full of energy, a death with Christ unto sin, and a new life in Him unto sanctification. The Tractarians were so far from teaching that the mere mechanical sprinkling with water ensured salvation, that they insisted again and again on the danger of forfeiting Baptismal grace by post-Baptismal sin. Again, the Tractarian view of the necessity of maintaining the new Life by means of Holy Communion, brought the soul into the awful Presence of the Redeemer, opened flood-gates of Divine Grace not only through Eucharistic forgiveness of sin, but by the Divine indwelling in man. "He taking our flesh, and we receiving His Spirit; by His Flesh, which He took of us receiving His Spirit, which He imparteth to us, that as He through us became partaker of human nature we by His might should become par-takers of Divine Nature." In all this doctrine there is not only no intervening between God and the soul, but a drawing close, close even into the closeness of mystical union. "Closer is the nearness of Almighty God to those who will receive Him than when He walked with Adam in Paradise . . . yes, nearer than when in the flesh, His disciples did eat and drink with Him, and went in and out with Him."

Nor is it only in the Sacraments that this mystical nearness is found. The Church itself does not come between Christ and us, for it is itself the mystical Body of Christ. It is the Temple of the Living God in which we, as our-selves shrines of His indwelling, are for ever hallowed and through the blissful company of the Saints brought into closest communion with Him. It is necessary to do justice to the undoubted fervour of Tractarian mysticism before charging it with cold externalism.

While we acknowledge unhesitatingly that the Tractarian Revival was no mere reawakening of ceremonialism, but entirely alien in its intention to the ceremonial development which claims parentage from it, we cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that the fervent piety of the founders of the movement was part of the religious awakening of their day, taking hold of them as it did of other schools and churches around them. Still we maintain that by their romanticism, and in part by political prejudices, the Tractarians suffered themselves to go back to that point in the parting of the spiritual ways of which one leads to the Roman conception of the Church as an institution devised to take care of men's souls for them, and thus intervening between them and God. The result was that some of the Tractarians were led directly into the Roman Church, while the rest built up an Anglican replica of Rome without a Pope. This Anglican section has found itself borrowing from Rome, not only ceremonial and doc-trine, but the external demarcation line of Episcopacy based on Apostolical Succession. The consequence is that an organization, not of Christ, has been created which comes between Christ and all non-episcopal Churches, and demands, as a condition of membership of the Body of Christ, acceptance of Episcopacy. There is indeed a further development under modernist influences, which clings to "Catholic" ceremonial, and accepts "Catholic" ideals of sanctity, on the ground that experience has proved the value of them. This school by its renunciation of authority, whether Scriptural or Patristic, is indeed constitutionally further from Rome than were the Tractarians, but it has no little difficulty in distinguishing its conception of the Holy Catholic Church from that of Rome, and from that trend of thought which the Tractarians held in common with Rome.

In short there is much truth in Dean Inge's statement that "history shows us that the powers of evil have won their greatest triumphs by capturing the organizations which were formed to defeat them, and that when the Devil has changed the contents of the bottles he never alters the labels." (n) To the Protestant it seems that, in the Oxford Movement, an effort was made to release the Church of England from Rationalism, that had degenerated into cold formalism by a return to Emotionalism. This return was however intensely suspicious of the Emotionalism of Evangelicals, in which it detected the Individualism of Rationalism thinly and unsatisfactorily disguised. The Oxford Movement sought the Emotionalism of mystery, awe, and veneration, found what it desired in its reading of seventeenth century Anglicanism, and of Patristic Theology, both of which it utilized in service of preconceived theories. It went back to the medieval corruptions which vitiated Romanism, and very soon a portion of the Tractarians were swept into the strong current of Rome. Others stayed behind in the hope of bringing the whole Church of England into the realm of so-called Catholic doctrine and practice. In either case, that is in Rome or outside it, escape was sought from unbelief through organizations once formed to defeat unbelief; but now captured by forces .that required obedience to the authority of the organization as in-dispensable to perfect faith in God through Jesus Christ. Protestantism is the principle of maintaining a direct personal relation of fallen man with a personal Saviour God. To this it adds suspicion of ceremonial which has a historical association with organizations which have sought to intervene between God and man, and which claim that such intervention is indispensable for right relation with God. It is more than this. It is also the inherent symbolic purpose of such ceremonial to inculcate doctrine.

On the question of access to God the controversy between Tractarians and Evangelicals may be concisely summarized thus: The Evangelical takes the words of Our Lord: "No man cometh unto the Father but by Me" (St. John xiv, 6) without any supplement or addition. The Tractarian adds to them the qualification: "through the Church" Whence follows the inquiry "What is the Church?" "Where is it to be found?"

Again the Evangelical teaches that we enter the Church through living union with Christ: the Tractarian teaches that we are admitted into living union with Christ through the Sacraments of the Church.

The Protestant, therefore, is unmoved by the claims made for the Catholic Ideal on the ground of antiquity, and by the no less seductive claim that this Ideal takes into account and makes its own the piety and the learning, the art and the architecture of many centuries. These all have their place and value for purposes of spiritual as well as intellectual culture. The Protestant is not necessarily a Philistine nor an ignoramus. He has no business to be either one or the other. But he insists that the spiritual life is a free gift of God, which no works of his own can merit, and that by faith and faith alone this gift is appropriated. He also insists that the only righteousness acceptable with God is a perfect and Divine righteousness which no act of his own can work out. He has, therefore, no righteousness of his own to offer to God but the righteousness of Jesus Christ. The sacraments administered by the Church are seals of grace already given. The whole of this Divine impartation is in order to the progressive sanctification of his life by the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. The primary duty entailed by the believer's new relation to God is, however, and always must be the communication of this evangel to others. Woe to him, always, if he impart not the glad tidings. That duty takes precedence of all the rest. But the gospel which he has received is not confined to his duty to individuals, He is set apart to do the work of God in the station of life to which he is called, and that work includes his duty as a member of the Church to maintain, as far as in him lies, purity of faith and worship within the Church. It includes also his duty as a citizen to conform, so far as he can, the law of the State of which he is a subject to the law of God. In carrying out these duties he cheerfully accepts the principle of co-operation with all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity and tries to bring himself, his rules of life, his business, his expenditure, and conduct of his household, into principles of habitual and daily self-denial. (The Tractarian Movement: 1833-1845, London: Putnam, 1933, pp. 372-380)


John Calvin and the Right to Armed Resistance

Part 1

Part 2

Relevance to Anglicanism?  Think John of Salisbury, the Magna Carta, George Washington, James Madison and Leonidas Polk (the last three being three notable Anglicans who believed in the right to armed resistance).  The West, including the United States, is entering a time in which Christian resistance theory may become a live topic again.  Of course, resistance can be passive or active, and the active resistance of taking up arms in defense of state and/or federal constitutions (the fundamental law of the land) and the liberties that flow therefrom is always a measure of last resort.   But it is one that Christians have taken when all peaceful measures have failed, both here and abroad, historically and recently (e.g., South Sudan). 

Christian resistance theory traces its origins to the Bible, late patristic and medieval Catholic thought.  Catholics are still ruminating about it today in the wake of recent assaults on religious liberty.  But Protestants such as John Calvin made their own contributions, and Anglicans haven't all followed the Tory approach to the matter.


Gospel Hope for England

Kevin Kallsen interviews the Free Church of England's Bishop of the Nothern Diocese John Fenwick on Anglican TV regarding the FCE, its history and its desire to work FCA, AMiE and others in re-evangelizing England "and beyond".  Good stuff.


Return of the Embryo Parson

It's complicated. ;>)